October 5, 2014 11:11 pm -

This won’t end well.


The United States sent helicopters into combat against Islamic State targets west of Baghdad on Sunday, the first time low-flying Army aircraft have been committed to fighting in an engagement that the Obama administration officials has promised would not include “boots on the ground.”

The U.S. Central Command, in a statement about U.S. activities against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, provided few specifics about the helicopters. They were probably AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, which were deployed to Baghdad International Airport in June to provide protection for U.S. military and diplomatic facilities.

Until Sunday, U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have been limited to fast-moving Air Force and Navy fighter aircraft and drones. But the use of the relatively slow-flying helicopters represents an escalation of American military involvement and is a sign that the security situation in Iraq’s Anbar province is deteriorating. Last week, the Islamic State militants overran numerous Iraqi bases and towns and were becoming a widespread presence in Abu Ghraib, the last major town outside of Baghdad’s western suburbs.[su_csky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

18 responses to Low-Flying Helicopters Now In Combat In Iraq

  1. fahvel October 6th, 2014 at 3:34 am

    body bag time is coming quite rapidly.

  2. Skydog2 October 6th, 2014 at 3:55 am

    Mission creep.

  3. greenfloyd October 6th, 2014 at 4:15 am

    Boots just off the ground. I wonder if they got what’s his name, “Jihadi-John,” or any of those celebrity terrorists in their sights? Might be worth the risk if they can bring back a head or two, figuratively of course.

  4. OldLefty October 6th, 2014 at 7:04 am

    The time to worry about what will or will not end well was in 2003, before the country was broken and the region was destabilized.

    Now you have an irrational entity who if you fight them, you give them what they want, and it will not end well, and if you don’t fight them they grow stronger and it will not end well.

    Much like a child who is willing to run into traffic or throw the toaster into the dish water.

    I maintain that this is an issue that if you are not conflicted, you are not thinking.

  5. edmeyer_able October 6th, 2014 at 8:38 am

    One of the last people to want this is Potus as everyone knows what happens if one of these heli’s is shot down.
    But somehow I get the feeling that some of those commenting are gleefully rubbing their hands together as they believe it will lead to a republican sweep in the elections and could give a dam n about any U S casuality on foreign soil.

    • greenfloyd October 6th, 2014 at 9:14 am

      I doubt this would happen without a full briefing and Obama’s approval. I suspect CENTCOM may have a specific target in mind. Although recent news reports seem to indicate these IS guys have been driving hard to the hoop, continuing to close in on Baghdad overpowering Iraq defenses, again. It’s a messed-up situation but I don’t think anyone here wants US causalities. I would like to see hostages freed, take away their most valuable asset. “Jihadi John’s” head on a pike would be great, too.

      • granpa.usthai October 6th, 2014 at 9:21 am

        the greater propaganda tool for IS is to capture US Military personnel alive, both for recruitment and international embarrassment to the US.
        This would only serve to infuriate the American people, as 9-11-2001, causing them to forget how IS is funded and the offshore bank accounts of those who will profit from US Troop Casualties.

        • greenfloyd October 6th, 2014 at 9:45 am

          I agree it’s risky, yet we have to remember we are not privy to latest intelligence. Perhaps a window of opportunity has opened and possible gains outweigh the danger? Or it’s simply what it appears to be, Iraq on the ropes, again.

          • granpa.usthai October 6th, 2014 at 3:14 pm

            If the Iraqi Army had stood it’s ground, would there really be a need for US involvement at all? What are we (USA that’s bearing the brunt of the cost -AGAIN) going to gain from our involvement?
            Free Oil? Cheap Oil? – or just a few with huge offshore bank accounts that will be held accountable to no one?

          • greenfloyd October 6th, 2014 at 11:25 pm

            You ask 2 important questions about involvement and who profits.

            I don’t think Obama would have gotten involved, if not asked and the Iraqis didn’t get their political house in order. They did, at least to his satisfaction. I don’t think we would have been asked back had the Iraqis the ability to repel the attackers themselves. The President has made it abundantly clear we are engaging for humanitarian reasons and the protection of American lives and interests. Is that overly broad? Considering recent revelation of attacking the new al-Qaeda offshot, Khorasan Group, in Syria and the general consensus this is going to be a long hard slog, Congressional oversight would be a good idea, IMHO. Maybe then we’ll see exactly “who profits!”

      • edmeyer_able October 6th, 2014 at 11:18 am

        Note, I didn’t say anyone wants casualties, they just don’t care if they occur, there’s a difference. j/s

        • greenfloyd October 7th, 2014 at 10:23 pm

          Noted. I should have clarified my comment. Thank you.

  6. granpa.usthai October 6th, 2014 at 9:13 am

    How many times can you hit a hornet’s nest with a 2 foot stick without being stung?
    If IS is half the threat made out to be, nuke ’em – if not, it’s only a continued armed conflict for the 2% to keep filling their offshore bank accounts.

  7. Skydog2 October 6th, 2014 at 10:45 am

    If president Obama keeps up his war for oil, he won’t get another nobel peace prize.

    • edmeyer_able October 6th, 2014 at 11:15 am

      Do you know why Obama rec’d the Nobel in the 1st place?

      • Skydog2 October 6th, 2014 at 12:30 pm

        The panel met 2/1/09 which was shortly after he took office. He did absolutely nothing to deserve the award. Even Obama said “he does not feel he deserved the award”.

        • edmeyer_able October 6th, 2014 at 12:50 pm

          That’s what I thought.

        • Spirit of America October 10th, 2014 at 5:22 am

          He wasn’t in quite 3 weeks when they voted. He received the award for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” with special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
          All w/in 3 weeks… 🙂